Agnostic.com

3 2

Sam Harris is Wrong About Morality (It Can't Be Objective),
CosmicSkeptic

Tho posted before, here is Part 1
Morality Can't Be Objective, Even If God Exists (Morality p.1), CosmicSkeptic

phxbillcee 9 July 9

Post a comment Reply Add Photo

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

3 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

1

"Is morality objective?" is the wrong question, because it assumes it's externally bestowed or at least defined. Morality is a work product of society. It's a rough and constantly-evolving consensus about what sustainably promotes the kind of society most of its members want. In most societies that's some form of civil society where the "pursuit of happiness" is maximized and the harm of others is minimized via civility.

Excellent.

1

I agree with Sam Harris.

He is not claiming there is an objective morality based on a philosophical argument, as this person is doing. He is basing it on the prevention of human suffering.

Athena Level 8 July 10, 2018
4

I'm hard of hearing so couldn't really hear the kid's points but from watching a whole lot of debates on morality it's usually just a matter of how people define objective. I define objective as universally accepted by the social order. Christians try to make it some rule out there in the ether written by god without really saying how that is even possible. If the video makes a better point I'm sure it will be pointed out by folks that could actually hear the "CosmicSkeptic."

gearl Level 7 July 9, 2018

Sorry 'bout that. I know the feeling, as I'm deaf in one ear. Have you tried headphones?

Yes, I think you make a good point about the definition of "objective". Sam Harris has always walked a tightrope with his argument for objective morality. For example, he loves to say that we all agree that pain is bad and is to be avoided. But, not only would sadomasochists not agree with him, but either would people who say "no pain, no gain." But, I suspect the problem is more with the way people take him than what he really means. That is, I don't think he means objective as the polar opposite of subjective, but more in line with a near-universal social consensus...but even that is hard to defend when you get into the weeds of the details with someone who wants to prove you wrong and argues for a divine objective morality without exception.
I also liked the CosmicSkeptic's "saving grace" approach of admitting subjectivity while arguing along the lines of individual moral inconsistency. Perhaps, Harris could take a lesson from him. 🙂

@Heraclitus
You are referencing examples that actually bring people pleasure or act toward some betterment (no pain no gain). These are not examples of human suffering.

You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:126693
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.